I feel the need, the need for speed!(HDD)

[Andrew111]

I was about to buy an IBM 40GB 60GXP hard drive, but now I'm a bit hesitant after reading all the posts here concerning defective IBM drives. I know it's supposed to be the 75GXP's that are having the higher RMAs, but I have also heard a lot about 60GXP hard drives kicking the bucket. I don't want to have to worry about my hdd becoming defective over time, because I use my computer extensively, and will not enjoy losing all my data because of a defective drive that I knew had a bad reputation. I'd kick myself if that happened, lol.

So.....Can anyone recommend a hard drive I should look into/compare with IBM's 60GXP? I want a HDD that is more reliable and just as fast, or faster than IBM's 60GXP! Also, it's needs to be a 30-40 gig hdd. As for price, it needs to be less than 300 dollars, preferable less than 200 dollars, but I can shell out up to 300 if need be.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Andrew111]

anyone?

 

[crt1530]

Western Digital WD400BB. $103 at Newegg.com

 

[DanJ]

I agree with the WD400BB. I got 2 in RAID 0. Like 'em a lot lot. Super quiet.

 

[RichieZ]

the BB series is slightly slower than the 60GXP, i have the 600BB.

 

[renorocks]

It's hard to beat IBM 40gb 7200 rpm deskstar w/ 2mb cache. These are tested & true hard drives.
Get yorself a Promise Tech. IDE raid card ($70) and two IBM 40's ($120 ea.), set your two drives up for raid 0 & prepare to be blown away.

 

[TunaBoo]

IDE raid is a waste of time unless you do video editing or similar.

Real men use SCSI.

 

[DanJ]

<< the BB series is slightly slower than the 60GXP, i have the 600BB. >>

Actually, that's not entirely true...compare them via the storagereview database and you'll see that they're essentially the same, the BB faster in many areas (namely win2k).

I like my WD400BBs

 

[DanJ]

<< Real men use SCSI. >>

I think people who feel the need to bash IDE down and promote SCSI is similar to those who buy a large car to offset their small...you know...



I'm just sick of the IDE RAID bashing, for the love of christ people we all don't have that kind of cash to drop. I do video editing and capturing and an IDE RAID-0 80gig scratch disk is a lifesaver for me.

 

[TunaBoo]

<<

<< Real men use SCSI. >>

I think people who feel the need to bash IDE down and promote SCSI is similar to those who buy a large car to offset their small...you know...
>>



No, my GF is quiet happy with my size, thank you very much. Feel free to ask her, she reads the forums.



<<


>>






<<

I'm just sick of the IDE RAID bashing, for the love of christ people we all don't have that kind of cash to drop. I do video editing and capturing and an IDE RAID-0 80gig scratch disk is a lifesaver for me. >>



I specifically said, for video editing IDE raid is very very good. For general PC use and playing games, IDE raid is a steaming pile of crap.

Did you read my entire post before going on a MUST DEFEND IDE RAID rant?

 

[Andrew111]

<< the BB series is slightly slower than the 60GXP, i have the 600BB. >>



Slower in what aspect? Access time? And is the speed difference very noticeable?

Also, I just went to newegg to look through Western Digital hdds, what's the difference between the different bb#s? I saw 400BB, 600BB, and 800BB. Is the 800BB faster or better in some way?

 

[crt1530]

<< Real men use SCSI. >>


Me has an X15 36LP


<< Get yorself a Promise Tech. IDE raid card ($70) and two IBM 40's ($120 ea.), set your two drives up for raid 0 &amp; prepare to be blown away. >>


EDIT: &amp; prepare to be hella pissed because ALL your data is GONE.

 

[crt1530]

400BB == 40GB, 600BB == 60GB...

 

[DrPepper]

I'm currently using the 60gxp 40 gigger. it is EXTREMELY quiet! I love this drive...it doesn't keep me up at night when defragging like my old western digital did. However, I have heard from others that most of the new drives (30-40 gig/7200/ata100 - WD, Seagate, etc.) are also pretty quiet. I have no basis of comparison with these drives, but my ibm compared to my friend's maxtor diamondmax plus is quieter. I've been recommending this drive to anyone looking for one in its pricerange/size.

Also, I bought mine from newegg and it comes with a 3 year manufacturer warranty. you can even check your warranty status on ibm's site. Hope this helps.

 

[DanJ]

<< No, my GF is quiet happy with my size, thank you very much. Feel free to ask her, she reads the forums. >>

Congrats

I spose I was more bashing the &quot;Real men use SCSI&quot; comment. I'm just sick of people saying crap like this. As if most AT members (for instance) don't know that SCSI is better then IDE in a number of ways, it's a given. We accept it. Most of us know we can't afford SCSI RAID. I'm one of those.

IDE RAID is okay for some. When you say IDE RAID is a steaming pile of crap for most, I assume you are referring to RAID 0, as RAID 1 would function the same no matter SCSI or IDE.

But yes, I use IDE RAID, and I am a real man (like you I take it)...ask my gf...oh but she doesn't read this forum

 

[TunaBoo]

<<

I spose I was more bashing the &quot;Real men use SCSI&quot; comment. I'm just sick of people saying crap like this.
>>



True crap?



<<
As if most AT members (for instance) don't know that SCSI is better then IDE in a number of ways, it's a given. We accept we. Most of us know we can't afford SCSI RAID. I'm one of those.
>>


Nor can I afford SCSI raid



<<
IDE RAID is okay for some. When you say IDE RAID is a steaming pile of crap for most, I assume you are referring to RAID 0, as RAID 1 would function the same no matter SCSI or IDE.
>>


No, IDE sucks down your CPU cycles, and raid 1 on IDE is slower than single drive IDE, whereas raid 1 SCSI is faster than single drive SCSI.


<<
ask my gf...oh but she doesn't read this forum >>


Your loss.

 

[DanJ]

<< whereas raid 1 SCSI is faster than single drive SCSI. >>



LOL....I'm sorry but try to make sense out of this statement. What you're saying is that SCSI RAID writes to both drives faster then a single SCSI card writes to one? That makes no sense. RAID 1 is just mirroring, there is no performance gain, how could there be? I think you need to get your facts straight here...

Also, I don't quite think I got your rips here:
&quot;True crap?&quot;
&quot;Your Loss&quot;

Feel free to expand on those comments if you'd like

 

[gsaldivar]

&quot;...'m currently using the 60gxp 40 gigger. it is EXTREMELY quiet! ...&quot;

It gets even QUIETER when the drive crapps out on you...

 

[TunaBoo]

<<

<< whereas raid 1 SCSI is faster than single drive SCSI. >>



LOL....I'm sorry but try to make sense out of this statement. What you're saying is that SCSI RAID writes to both drives faster then a single SCSI card writes to one? That makes no sense. RAID 1 is just mirroring, there is no performance gain, how could there be? I think you need to get your facts straight here...
>>



SCSI raid 1 can read from both drives at once. IDE raid1 can not. SCSI Raid1 may write at the same speed as single drive, but what matters is the read.



<<

Also, I don't quite think I got your rips here:
&quot;True crap?&quot;
&quot;Your Loss&quot;

Feel free to expand on those comments if you'd like >>



Naw, no need to make it any more personal, I'd rather debate the merits of SCSI vs IDE. I have nothing against you.

 

[DanJ]

<< SCSI raid 1 can read from both drives at once >>



You sure you don't mean SCSI RAID 0? Why would the controller read the same data from two drives at one time? These drives are exact duplicates, they don't contain half the data on each side (like RAID 0), what would be the point of reading the same file off both drives? The idea of RAID 1 is that one drive is the base drive, the other drive is a mirror that just kind of hangs out and isn't messed with except if the base drive dies.

I think you must be confused, there is no difference between how RAID 1 works with IDE vs SCSI.

Thanks for keeping it clean

 

[crt1530]

I would not say SCSI RAID 1 IMPROVES overall performance, but it certainly doesn't DEGRADE performance when comparing to a single SCSI HD.

 

[gsaldivar]

&quot;...RAID 1 would function the same no matter SCSI or IDE...&quot;

&quot;...What you're saying is that SCSI RAID writes to both drives faster then a single SCSI card writes to one? That makes no sense. RAID 1 is just mirroring, there is no performance gain, how could there be?...&quot;

Actually Tunaboo is correct.

Raid-1 (Mirroring) actually CAN increase performance in comparison to a single drive...

&quot;...whenever data is written to a disk the same data is also written to a redundant disk, so that there are always two copies of the information. When data is read, it can be retrieved from the disk with the shorter queuing, seek and rotational delays...Mirroring is frequently used in database applications where availability and transaction time are more important than storage efficiency....&quot;

More about RAID in this thread.

An UGLY but EXCELLENT RAID Tutorial

 

[DanJ]

Ok...that's new info to me...but that doesn't mean that &quot;SCSI raid 1 can read from both drives at once&quot;, because it doesn't...it just picks the better location, no?

Interesting though nonetheless.

 

[renorocks]

<< Get yorself a Promise Tech. IDE raid card ($70) and two IBM 40's ($120 ea.), set your two drives up for raid 0 &amp; prepare to be blown away. >>


EDIT: &amp; prepare to be hella pissed because ALL your data is GONE.

EDIT THIS: Real men with half a brain realize that no matter what brand or type of drive you have (IDE or SCSI)....hard drives do fail. That's why the most extravagant &amp; expensive computer systems in the world have data back up.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I love SCSI, but most of us common folk either can't afford it or don't use the computer in ways that will highly benefit from having a SCSI system.

 

[gsaldivar]

renorocks: IBM is having some MAJOR reliability issues with their drives recently... check out the posts for more info:

here, here, here, and here...

there are dozens more threads if you do a search...